Re: Re:
Whatever. I think your take is rather vile.
If, say, there is a rider in Yellow come July with a commanding lead, but falls off in the closing stages allowing someone else to win, it's not the same type of cycling outcome as if his opponent made it up on his legs.
Having followed cycling since the early 80's, I've always thought this way and so too has everybody I've known and raced against who knows anything about the sport.
The Principal Sheep said:rhubroma said:The Principal Sheep said:Cannibal72 said:rhubroma said:Oh, come on. You folks agree that when the leader goes down its as if you beat him with your own legs. Utter tosh. Nibali is the luckiest GT winner out there. Period. He wouldn't have won the Giro without the crash and he would not have won the Tour without the crashes.
His actual palmares isn't a reflection of his real class. His head though is way bigger than his actual class. I was being kind before, but you have given me no choice. Cycling is about the big battles. Crashes negate them. Without the big battles, the race has been amputated, amputated underlined. So Nibali has basically won a butchered Tour and one butchered Giro.
And Kruijswijk's lead owed a healthy amount to Nibali's mechanical, which he had no control over at all. That wouldn't have been an amputated win?
People will go to ridiculous levels, riders crash, they have mechanicals, injuries, sickness etc. When does the crash need to occur to sully another riders win? stage 19 / 18 / 17 / 16 even before? does the downed rider need to be leading the race? some are even talking about a rider who didn't even get past stage 10 and was behind at the time. If a rider is at fault for his own crash but we make such allowances for the outcome do we do the same if the fault for lost time is a hunger knock? or if he has illness but can continue?
Nibali won a race without any outside interference effecting the outcome, sure people can discuss imaginary scenarios but these shouldn't be used to try and discredit the actual outcome and victory.
For the record I have "no problem" with the win. He won, this is a fact. But your argument is spurious and you know it.
When a rider crashes with an almost 5 min. lead in the climatic moments...well then that says something about the fortune of he who was able to win. No tears, no shouting in the wind, though we have to admit that the winner won, because his rival was eliminated from the competition.
This doesn't make the win less of a victory, though it does qualify it, otherwise it's the same as winning without amputation.
You say that Nibali's 'rival was eliminated from the competition' which is ambiguous, from my view he eliminated himself which is a difference. Now, you read an arguement where there was none and decided to take rise rather than answer so let me ask you (and please see this as conversation without ruffling your own feathers)
If a rider loses time by carelessly crashing by himself, or loses time by not eating/drinking correctly throughout the stage or loses time through illness from the night before, do you see these as all being the same? if the leader loses a 4 minute lead in a closing stage to his competitors due to such a discernible cause is this enough for your asterisk?
Whatever. I think your take is rather vile.
If, say, there is a rider in Yellow come July with a commanding lead, but falls off in the closing stages allowing someone else to win, it's not the same type of cycling outcome as if his opponent made it up on his legs.
Having followed cycling since the early 80's, I've always thought this way and so too has everybody I've known and raced against who knows anything about the sport.